Docstoc

(HC) Tubbs v. Yates - 5

Document Sample
(HC) Tubbs v. Yates - 5 Powered By Docstoc
					(HC) Tubbs v. Yates                                                                                                      Doc. 5


              Case 1:06-cv-00204-OWW-WMW                 Document 5        Filed 03/08/2006       Page 1 of 1


              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
              9                                 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
             10
             11   ABRAHAM ISAAC TUBBS,                )                    1:06-CV-00204-OWW-WMW-HC
                                                      )
             12         Petitioner,                   )                    ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
                                                      )                    APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
             13                 v.                    )                    (DOCUMENT #2)
                                                      )
             14   JAMES A. YATES,                     )
                                                      )
             15                                       )
                        Respondent.                   )
             16   ____________________________________)
             17            Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute
             18   right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d
             19   479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.),
             20   cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment
             21   of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c), Rules
             22   Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of
             23   justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly, IT IS
             24   HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's request for appointment of counsel is denied.
             25   IT IS SO ORDERED.
             26   Dated:     March 7, 2006                        /s/ William M. Wunderlich
                  bl0dc4                                     UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
             27
             28




                                                                                                            Dockets.Justia.com

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:28
posted:4/15/2008
language:Swedish
pages:1